Parchment and Pen » Biblical Contradiction? How Would You Respond?

Biblical Contradiction? How Would You Respond?

I just got an email from someone who has been involved in The Theology Program. They were concerned about the apparent contradictions in the Scripture. She brought up the often referred to discrepancies involved in the morning of the resurrection.

I wanted to share it with you so that I could inquire as to how you would handle this issue. I am curious. Notice, I did not say “solve” this for that would be rather assumptive and more than what I am asking. I am not saying that this is not able to be “solved” but I am more interested in how you would “handle” this, the solving might be included.

Here it is:

The Morning of the Resurrection:

Matthew 28:1-8:
A. Two women went down to the tomb. Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary.”
B. They went before sunup.
C. There was an earthquake and an angel rolled away the stone, and there were trembling guards watching.
D. The angel sat on the stone.
E. The angel invited the two women into the tomb and told them to inform the disciples that he would be showing up in Galilee.
F. The women ran away and didn’t tell anyone.

Mark 16: 1-8:
A. Three women go down to the tombâ€”Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. They have spices.
B. They went after sunup.
C. The stone was already rolled back.
D. They saw a young man in white who may or may not be an angel.
E. The man in white tells them to inform the disciples that he’ll be showing up in Galilee.
F. The women run away and did tell the disciples.

Luke 24: 1-12:
A. A group of women go down to the tomb, including Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and they have spices.
B. They go right at the crack of dawn.
C. The stone was already rolled back.
D. The women go inside, and two men in white are there.
E. The two men in white don’t speak.
F. The women tell the disciples what they saw, but the disciples all say, “Oh you did not.”

John 20: 1-13:
A. Mary Magdalene shows up at the tomb alone.
B. It’s still dark outside.
C. The stone is already rolled away.
D. Based on the other three, we’re expecting her to go inside right now, but instead she leaves.
E. She goes and finds Peter and tells him the stone is rolled away. She also informs the “beloved disciple.”
F. Meanwhile, she gets curious and goes back to the tomb, right behind the two men, and she stays after they’re gone. Then she sees two angels in white, plus she sees Jesus, but she thinks he’s a gardener.

Help this lady as she seems to see this a a hinderance to the faith.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

81 Responses to “Biblical Contradiction? How Would You Respond?”

Vance on 25 Feb 2009 at 6:33 pm #

Well, in my opinion, the WORST way to try to handle this situation (and I have come across it very often over the years) is to try to explain away all the discrepancies. What this does is it buys into the idea that IF any factual discrepancy exists from a literal reading, then we must throw the Bible out, which is a VERY dangerous position to concede. There are simply too many potential pitfalls, and if you are not convincing on a single one, then there goes the Bible for that person.

Instead, the best way I have found to handle this is to point out that these are fallible humans inspired to tell a divine message. That message is infallibly correct and it does involve historical facts, but a single factual error would not invalidate the historical truth of the events in general, much less the message itself. If you have two accounts of ANY historical event, you will have discrepancies, but that does not cause us to doubt that the event took place.

We do not have to give up sola scriptura by doing this. We just need to realize that God used the literary styles and methodologies of the time and place the texts were written, and these were not always focused on the minute accuracies of detailed facts. We should not judge the validity of the texts, or their infallible inspiration, by the standard of modern historical writing.
Daniel Eaton on 25 Feb 2009 at 7:03 pm #

A group of ladies went. Different people told the story. Some talk about two going. They don’t say “only two”. If three go, that includes two. Some say Mary went inside. Some say she left. She did both. The account that omits that doesn’t say she *didn’t* go in. It just doesn’t mention it. We tend to see “problems in the text” when we assume that if the text doesn’t say it, it didn’t happen or if it mentions a couple of people that is *all* that were involved. In other words, we insert the word “only” in too many places that it doesn’t belong.
D.
Vance on 25 Feb 2009 at 7:17 pm #

Ah, but Daniel, saying that “two went” really does imply that the author meant only two went. The only time anyone would read it otherwise is if they are intent on factually harmonizing the texts. It is an exercise that will only convince those who are already convinced, or want to be convinced.

The problem is that there are simply way to many such discrepancies to start attempting to make them NOT discrepancies. At some point, I believe you have to step back and accept that, very likely, some of the ARE discrepancies, and deal with it from that starting point.
Dan Powers on 25 Feb 2009 at 8:17 pm #

The question is how would we handle the situation? This is on the front line Christian witnessing. It really does not matter what the text is. You have a person who is asking a valid question, much like the one “which is it works or grace” where they try to put Paul and James at odds. As to how I have handled them, I ask for a clarification of the problem. What do they see is the problem or what is their understanding of the text? I let them use the text or reference it as best they can. Some of this will depend upon the situation. If I am at work, it is a bit hard to for them and myself to drag out a bunch of books and have a debate. I do avoid the “debate” or getting into the battle of wits and try to keep it as an intellectual discussion.

I had this one gentlemen who drilled me for weeks on various issues. I found that it was more of him wanting me to provided an answer more so then what the answer was. I think that he wanted to see a consistent belief system based on sound thinking. There were times that the only answer I could give was “based on my study, this is what I believe”. There were other times when I would take the question or issue from him and tell him “let me look into it.” I would always return with an answer of my own and not just repeat a set of books back at him. Sometimes, I would offer other views on a subject, such as the Rapture to provide a broader understanding of the concept. In this particular case God paid dividends. Not only did he accept Chris, his whole family did and they are now on the mission field. My part was the planting others nurtured and harvested.

I keep it real and personal with the person. My concern and interest in and for them is real. Its not a script and they are not task to complete.
Michael on 25 Feb 2009 at 9:22 pm #

The Gospels were written by different people years apart, it’s only logical that some of the details would be different. Mark and Luke are not eye witness writings, Matthew and John are.

A good reference for this is http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

Instead of focusing on the differences (which is really nit-picking any way), focus on what they have in common. The core message is salvation through Christ, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Gammell on 25 Feb 2009 at 11:26 pm #

Vance, Matthew doesn’t record “two went” bur rather that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went.” This is an important distinction. If I say “the President when to Ottawa” I don’t mean “one man went,” but rather that hundreds went to Ottawa and the central person to this outing was the President. In comparison, to refer to “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” is not necessarily exhaustive but may very readily be a truncated description emphasizing who Matthew saw as the significant members of the party.

To my mind, the differences among the four Gospels are actually in line with what one would expect from different eye witnesses reporting a significant event. Different people will hone in on different things and that’s how they will remember the event in question. They will truncate the story in different ways and remember different sets of details. Ask any couple about the time they first met and you will get at least two stories with lots of overlap but some notable differences.

If the Gospels were all just reciting some story they had been told, they would all be identical. That’s obviously not the case. If they were snapshots of an evolving myth, we should see signs of varying degrees of embellishment or cleaning up. That’s not there either. At their heart, all four stories say Jesus rose and women were the first to report it.
Greg Gibson on 26 Feb 2009 at 2:00 am #

Daniel Eaton’s answer above is the best.

Imagine you turn on the TV tonight to watch the news. You do some channel surfing between the major networks, and here is what you see…

ABC: “The President went to Camp David today.”

CBS: “The President and First Lady went to Camp David today.”

NBC: “The President, First Lady, and First Children went to Camp David today.”

FOX: “The President, First Lady, First Children, and Secret Security went to Camp David today.”

Is there a discrepancy? Did Katie Couric contradict Charles Gibson?

It’s amazing how skeptics expect a different standard from the Bible than the nightly news.

Jesus the Lord is risen!
Wolf Paul on 26 Feb 2009 at 3:13 am #

@#6 Greg:

But if Charles Gibson were to report that the First Family went to Camp David at 6 p.m., and Katie Couric reported that they went at 8 p.m., provided I watched both news programs, I would be puzzled and amused at how they got the facts wrong. And if a third news caster were to make a big deal of how the First Lady went down there all by herself at 7 p.m. I would be even more puzzled and amused at how these reporters all sound so confident of their facts and yet had it wrong.

Now, despite of how confident they sound, nobody claims divine inspiration, much less inerrancy, for the Evening News, but we do claim either one or both for the Bible, so different expectations are normal.

For this reason I find approaches such as Vance’s (#1) and Michael’s (#5) much more useful and convincing.
Jason on 26 Feb 2009 at 6:10 am #

Vance’s approach (and Michael’s is similar) is the best here. Greg, Daniel, I think we really can harmonize some things, but try doing that for this whole scene, including the statements about time that Wolf alludes to. As Vance points out, there are too many discrepancies. Even if you can theoretically resolve them all, it will be so complex that few will agree in all details or even take time to hear all details.

This discussion seems loosely connected to cmp’s previous post:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/11/inerrancy-is-too-much-an-alternate-proposal-to-amend-ets-doctrinal-statement/
Greg Gibson on 26 Feb 2009 at 6:20 am #

Resurrection Chronology: Parallel Chart of Matt., Mark, Luke, & John
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/resurrection-chronology
E on 26 Feb 2009 at 7:56 am #

Wolf Paul has hit on the problem that Daniel’s response seems to ignore – i.e., it’s not just omissions or additions between the various resurrection accounts (and other accounts), but conflicting details such that both or all three (or four) can’t be correct.

And that makes the term “inerrant” when applied to things like this a meaningless or improper term.

If one text says he went from Dallas and then to Denver and then to Seattle, but the other text says he went from Dallas and then to Seattle and then to Denver, either one or both of them is wrong re: that specific incident.

If a person excuses that by saying the author didn’t mean to be precise in his details, but meant only to give an overall idea of what the person did and where he went, then one can’t claim that the text gives an accurate historical account.

If the Gospels aren’t accurate historical accounts, then what do we mean when we say “Jesus did such and such” or “Jesus said such and such”? Can we with certainty say, “This is what Jesus said”? Or is it more correct to say, “This is what the author of the Gospel of Mark says that Jesus said on this occasion”?

If we had only one Gospel instead of four, we’d know (or say or think we knew) what Jesus did during the last week of His life, and the order in which He did them; we’d know what He said on the cross, how the thieves treated Him, and if He took the drink; we’d know who was at the tomb; we’d know if the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not; we’d know when He gave the various parts that make up the Sermon on the Mount (or was it on the plain?); we’d know if He healed Malchus’s ear; we’d know the right version of the Lord’s Prayer; we’d know what the words of institution were (maybe; there’s still 1 Corinthians); we’d know what He said in His Olivet Discourse, and where He said it; we’d know how many blind men he healed; we’d know His genealogy; we’d know how many times He cleansed the Temple; we’d know the names of His twelve disciples; we’d know how Judas died (unless that one Gospel was Matthew’s); we’d know who washed His feet with her hair, and whether she anointed His feet or His head, and whose house it happened in. Etc.

As someone elsewhere has said about these things, the problem is not that we don’t know enough about what Jesus said and did; the problem is that we know too much.
ScottL on 26 Feb 2009 at 8:27 am #

CMP -

It is a small detail, one that doesn’t consider what you’ve asked, but it is probably very likely that Matt 28:2-4 is a summary statement of what happened before the 2 Mary’s arrived, which is described in vs1 and 5.

Also, you mentioned Matthew was an eyewitness. I know you know this, but just saying he wasn’t actually an eyewitness at the tomb. He saw Jesus later on, but wasn’t at the tomb. He also had to get his story from someone, maybe from Peter and John since it seems they were there.

In all, I think we try and push our modern ideas about detailed evidence and testimony from the 20th and 21st centuries into the writers and culture of the Scripture. I just don’t see them as holding to such an absolute and defined degree as we do in the post-Enlightenment, modern and scientific era of our day. For us westerners in our culture, exact and minuscule detail is required, for we love empirically proven evidence. And though we read that someone like Luke did do some research, I still don’t believe the writers of Scripture were so bothered by the reporter detail of cross-referencing data, using footnotes, in depth researching and all that we get involved in today. I don’t have a problem with us being so detailed today, but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, though directed by the Spirit in the process of writing, were not trying to record every minute detail. It’s refreshing to me to know they were not crafting a record book of history, but communicating the greater redemption drama, which included communicating the power of Christ in His birth, life, death and resurrection!
Peter on 26 Feb 2009 at 9:21 am #

I don’t see any issue with the sun and whether it was up. They left before dawn and arrived around dawn. If dawn has arrived, the sun is up.

Did the women say anything? I think Mark is saying they didn’t say anything “as they fled”. It’s unreasonsable to interpret him to mean they never ever said anything, especially as the angel in that account specifically says to tell the disciples.

My Greek is weak, but I don’t think any of the narratives actually say that the stone was “already” rolled away. Rather they say they found it was rolled away. Matthew says it was rolled away while they weren’t looking. So is it unreasonable to say that they found the stone rolled away?
clearblue on 26 Feb 2009 at 10:05 am #

I would encourage your correspondent to read the passages more closely and pay more attention to detail.

A. John 20:1 says that Mary went to the tomb, but in John 20:2 she says to Peter and John that ‘WE do not know where they have laid him’. IOW, she implies that there were others. So, it is putting words into John’s mouth by saying that Mary turned up ‘alone’. Similarly, other Gospels do not give numbers (which might lead to a charge of discrepancy); instead, they give names, and as they do not claim that they are giving an exhaustive list of names, they cannot be charged with discrepancy.

B. Matthew and Mark use participles: ‘at the dawning’, ‘at the rising of the sun’; Luke says nothing about ‘at the crack of dawn’ (to quote you correspondent) – he simply says ‘very early’. John is the only one who presents any possibility of a discrepancy by saying ‘while it was still dark’, but presumably it is still quite dark at dawn (I’m not often up at the ‘crack of dawn’, but I know that at sundown it is quite dark – the light is low). Anyone who tries to argue over these sorts of differences is gagging on gnats.

C. Matthew 28 does not say the stone is rolled away while the women watch. Instead, verses 2 and 3 are (probably) describing retrospectively what had happened before the women got there, to explain (a) why the guard (Mt 27:65) was not there, and (b) why the sealed stone (Mt 27:66) was moved. The other gospels simply say that the stone had been rolled away by the time the women got there.

D. Assuming that Matthew 28:2-3 are a retrospective explanation of why the stone had been rolled away, verse 4 resumes the story of the women’s visit. Notice that it does not state where the angel was or what position the angel occupied while speaking to the women. His ’sitting on the stone’ was in relation to the guards in verse 2, not in relation to the women who arrived on the scene shortly after.

As to the numbers and descriptions of the angel/s (or men in white/shining garments) related in the other three gospels, this is a more substantial possibility of discrepancy.

The angels/men discrepancy is just phenomenological language – ie. they were in REALITY angels, but the way they would APPEAR to a startled bystander would probably be best described by the language of ‘young man, wearing white (or bright) clothing’. We commonly use phenomenological language to describe the sun rising (when in reality, it is the earth spinning on its axis), without people complaining about us contradicting known laws of nature.

As to the numbers of angels at the tomb, let us assume (for argument’s sake, for the moment) that there were two. When they spoke to the women in Luke 24:5, did they convey their message in unison or talk over each other in their excitement? More likely, one would have to take the role of a spokesman. As with any pair of people involved in the Bible, one will usually have to assume a position of prominence – it is just the way things happen in the real world.

Furthermore, any person later fiving a summary of such an event (e.g. a gospel writer), as opposed to an eye-witness, not under cross-examination in a court of law, nor wishing to provide exhaustive information about every detail of what transpired, is free to craft an account of such an event which focuses attention on the points of interest (and leaving out other details which distract from such a purpose) with the point of getting an important message across. Notice how short all the accounts of the women’s visit(s) to the tomb are. Why do we insist on Gospel reporters providing exhaustive detail to satisfy our unbelieving hearts’ quibbles?

E. The ‘men in white’ don’t speak in Luke?? Luke 24:5 says that they do speak, just as Matthew and Mark tell us.

F. Here is the most substantial possibility of discrepancy (but your correspondent mixes up the details). I might get back to it later on a further combox post – I have to ‘run’ myself.

‘I rejoice at your word as one who finds great treasure’ (psalm 119:162)
whoschad on 26 Feb 2009 at 11:06 am #

Richard Bauckham touched on this subject in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. From what I remember, it was his contention that the presence of different names tied this story to different eyewitnesses. That is, each gospel writer got their information from different eyewitness sources. For example, one tradition maybe goes back to Mary of Magdelene, another tradition to Mary the mother of James and yet another to Salome. Luke says he gets the information from his gospel from several sources, maybe he tried to unify a couple of different accounts himself.

I have the opposite problem this lady does: Little discrepancies like this are a great comfort to me. If all of these accounts were exactly the same, it would be clear that someone either made up the story, or altered with the texts later to make them fit better. Instead, we’ve got some differences that you’d expect from eyewitnesses (who have just experienced something no one else ever has).

What’s important is that all accounts are in agreement as to what happened there. If I read that Jesus died at 3:30 to pay for our sins, and then I read somewhere else that Jesus died at 2:45 to pay for our sins, I think the point remains crystal clear.
Phil W on 26 Feb 2009 at 11:27 am #

My harmony:
A. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna (and possibly other women) went to the tomb.
B. They went at dawn, arriving at the tomb just after the sun had risen. It was still fairly dark.
C. The stone had been rolled away.
D. Two angels wearing bright white, who looked like young men, were at the tomb. [This (besides John’s point F) is the most difficult point to harmonize, but it likely has to do with the angels not being stationary.]
E. One of the angels (speaking for both of them), tells the women that Jesus has been raised from the dead, that they should tell the disciples this, and that Jesus will meet them in Galilee.
F. The women don’t tell anyone at first. They composed themselves after a few hours and then told the disciples. The disciples did not believe at first, but Peter and the beloved disciple went to the tomb to see for themselves.

Matthew 28:1-8:
A. Two women are named, but it doesn’t say that they were the only ones.
B. should say “They went at dawn” (or “as the day was dawning”).
C. It’s quite possible that verses 2-4 refer to something that had happened before the women had arrived, as in: “There had been a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord had come down from heaven and, having gone to the tomb, had rolled back the stone and sat on it. … The guards were so afraid of him that they had shaken and had become like dead men.”
F. should say “The women hurried away and ran to tell the disciples.” (It looks like you’ve confused Matthew and Mark.)

Mark 16:1-8:
D. The “young man” is an angel.
F. As I pointed out above, you’ve switched Matthew and Mark. It’s possible that the women didn’t tell anyone at first, but after they had composed themselves they told people. If they didn’t tell anyone ever, then how did Mark know about it?

Luke 24:1-12:
E. “The two men in white don’t speak.” What? They speak in verses 5b-7!

John 20:1-13:
A. Again, only Mary Magdalene is mentioned but that doesn’t mean that she was alone. In fact, in verse 2 she says, “we don’t know,” indicating that she wasn’t alone.
B. “It’s still dark outside.” It’s still pretty dark at dawn.
D. The women must have gone inside the tomb — or else how did they know that the Lord’s body wasn’t still inside the tomb?
F. It’s difficult to fit this part in with the rest. A partial suggestion: Verses 11-13 chronologically fit in between verses 1 and 2. Verses 14-18 refer to a later occasion. (The Gospel writers often had concerns that were not chronological.)
Rey Reynoso on 26 Feb 2009 at 12:19 pm #

Ms, lets have some coffee (if nearby): What do you think happened after Christ resurrected and in what order? I mean frankly it’s a puzzler to know the exact details so maybe you can clarify it. I have some ideas and maybe we can compare notes but honestly it’s great that we have this sort of historical messiness. If every tight detail was perfectly identical I would start wondering if someone Messed With The Jury.

The fact that we all discuss the number of shooters or who did the shooting in no way disproves that JFK was shot. It just means that history is messy.
E on 26 Feb 2009 at 12:24 pm #

The fact that we all discuss the number of shooters or who did the shooting in no way disproves that JFK was shot. It just means that history is messy.

Agreed. Just don’t say such accounts are “inerrant” when it requires making the term “inerrant” mean something other than what it means when talking about anything else being “inerrant.”
Steve in Toronto on 26 Feb 2009 at 12:28 pm #

I have a very simple explanation: Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are fallible human beings. In fact this explanation is entirely constant with the texts and is not in conflict with any of the ancient ecumenical creeds (as well as no Papal decrees or Reformation era confessions as far as I know). I have no idea why so many evangelicals resist this obvious explanation. We don’t expect perfection from anything else that mere mortals have created why should the gospels be any different? The fact that his disciples made a few (relatively trivial and entirely understandable mistakes given the time between the events and the time that they were written down) does not mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Peace
Steve in Toronto
Steve in Toronto on 26 Feb 2009 at 12:32 pm #

P.S. when you’re done reconciling the gospels different accounts of the resurrection can somebody take a crack at Mark 1:2?
Steve in Toronto on 26 Feb 2009 at 12:40 pm #

P.P.S Yes I know “why so many evangelicals resist this obvious explanation” we are wedded to a naive understanding that the bible is some kind of “magic book” that at the same time is a product of fallible humans and the literal “word of God”. It no wonders that when thoughtful evangelical scholars try to nail down what the work inerrancy actually mean they immediately start hedging.
Vance on 26 Feb 2009 at 1:05 pm #

Steve from north of the border, I agree entirely. Every time the more extreme proponents of literal, factual inerrancy try to draw a line in the sand, then eventually have to wipe that one out and draw a new one. Or, they create their theoretical harmonizations and “clean-ups” and then dig in their heels with a “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

I think instead a better approach for the fundamentalists (speaking as one who attends an Assembly of God church, and has a father and two cousins who are AG pastors) is to step back and consider what really needs to be infallible and inerrant for our Gospel message to believed and considered true and thus be a solid basis for belief.

I think they should consider how many millions of Christians hold to the truth of the Gospel as strongly as the most ardent literal inerrantist, but who seem to have no problem at all accepting that the telling of the historical events could have factual errors and discrepancies. I would not conclude that the battle of Gettysburg did not happen because I read two different eyewitness accounts which differed on which regiment was in the lead during Picket’s Charge. Yes, one of the two (or both) ARE in error on that point, but the fact that the two accounts agree on so many other details would be very convincing that the battle took place and that there was a charge led by Picket. That should be enough for belief.
Phil W on 26 Feb 2009 at 1:22 pm #

Dear Steve and Vance,

I agree that “inerrant” may not be the best (or most traditional) term to describe the Bible. But I don’t believe that we should ascribe errors to it so easily.

Is there anything unreasonable in my suggestions (#15)?

Steve,

You asked about Mark 1:2. Mark 1:2-3 reads:

It is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”– “a voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”

So, the problem appears to be that Mark only mentions “Isaiah the prophet”, but goes on to quote both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 (with a touch of Exodus 23:20 in there too).

Would your correction read, “It is written in Malachi and Isaiah the prophets”? It doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.

Besides, Matthew 27:9-10 poses a more serious but similar problem!
rick on 26 Feb 2009 at 1:45 pm #

3 things:

1st- Daniel in #2 touches on an important point- some see problems because it is not giving the description they are expecting. If you are expecting a full historical record, that is not what the you are going to get. We don’t do it in our own daily coversations, and we should not expect it here.

Which leads to the 2nd item: what were the authors (including God) intending to communicate? Was anything decribed in the attended message actually wrong? Perhaps any apparent problems are more our misunderstanding of genre and intended message.

3rd- when we focus on this too much, we miss the fact that 99% of Scripture does not have such issues.
steve martin on 26 Feb 2009 at 2:15 pm #

There may be some discrepancies in scripture.

Another possible one:

Where did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit?

John says in the Upper Room…and Acts says at Pentecost.

So what? The story of scripture is true and infallible while the text may have a few contradictions.

I’ll say it agin…”So what!”

Are we like the Moslems who have to have every single jot and tittle come down from Heaven with a bow wrapped around it?

God uses imperfect people, imperfect elements of bread and wine, and imperfect words of scripture to get His perfect message and perfect gospel across to sinful people.

Jesus Himself was fully man…and fully God. There you go.
Vance on 26 Feb 2009 at 4:20 pm #

Phil, as for your harmonization, sure that is as good as any. But, the real question is what each Gospel writer meant to say when he wrote his own text. Is it more probably, going solely by the text and not a desire to harmonize, that Matthew meant two women or two among a larger number, etc. If you read each text alone, without the benefit of having the other text (as most early Christians did), how would you have read that passage?

We have to distinguish between our beliefs about what actually happened and our belief about what the author intended when he told his version of events. I think that the version of events Mark believed and wrote down is, almost assuredly, different than the version of events Matthew believed and wrote down, *as to these non-essential points*. If you asked Matthew whether he meant two women or two among a group, he would say he meant just the two, since that is the version he heard. Then if you told him “hey, that is not what Mark said!” he would shrug and say “well, he may be correct on that point, I wasn’t there”. And then he would wonder why such an answer horrifies you. :0)

I don’t want to ascribe factual errors to Scripture at every turn, and I tend to see dramatically less than most historians and scholars (even as one with a degree in ancient history). But, I am willing to step back a bit and see these texts as inspired and infallible in a very different manner than so many fundamentalists do today. To me, Scripture does not become infallible because there are factual discrepancies and even errors in details.
Vance on 26 Feb 2009 at 4:21 pm #

What Steve Martin said above. Time two.
Greg S. on 26 Feb 2009 at 4:30 pm #

In the Bible there are no contaradicitions; paradoxes yes, but
certainly no contractions.Let us fully investigate w/much cross ref.,
because all of us must handle the Word of God w/the utmost care.
God Bless you all
E on 26 Feb 2009 at 4:32 pm #

To me, Scripture does not become infallible because there are factual discrepancies and even errors in details.

And if there are such errors, then the term “inerrant” cannot and should not be used about these Scriptures, or else we’re in Alice’s Wonderland and saying that “inerrant” doesn’t necessarily mean “without error.”

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he SAID was, `Why is a raven like a writing-desk?’

`Come, we shall have some fun now!’ thought Alice. `I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles.–I believe I can guess that,’ she added aloud.

`Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?’ said the March Hare.

`Exactly so,’ said Alice.

`Then you should say what you mean,’ the March Hare went on.

`I do,’ Alice hastily replied; `at least–at least I mean what I say–that’s the same thing, you know.’

`Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see”!’

`You might just as well say,’ added the March Hare, `that “I like what I get” is the same thing as “I get what I like”!’

`You might just as well say,’ added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that “I breathe when I sleep” is the same thing as “I sleep when I breathe”!’

`It IS the same thing with you,’ said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn’t much.
Steve in Toronto on 26 Feb 2009 at 4:33 pm #

Re: Phil W I am reminded about what Frederic Nietzsche is suppose to have said about the book of Revelations “If God wrote it he didn’t know very much Greek”. There comes a point when one is simply overcome with the very human nature of the Bible. If a student was as sloppy and imprecise as Mark seems to be he/she would probably rate a C at best. For me the scales fell from my eyes when I started to understand the process of canon formation. The sad thing is that the Evangelical scholars that are trying to come to terms with these issues men like Peter Enns are being drummed out of Evangelical instructions. We now know more about the formation of Bible and the cultures that gave birth to it then any other generation of Christians. The time has come for Evangelical scholars to integrated this knowledge into there hermeneutics. The traditional evangelical concept of inerrancy is harming our understanding of the bible not enriching it.
Scott Ferguson on 26 Feb 2009 at 4:51 pm #

I have some sympathy for the woman who wrote the email. The move away form certainty is frightening and perilous. I suppose all believers start out with the simplistic view of the Bible being 100% the word of God, 100% accurate. Inevitably one is faced with the one angel/two young men issue, Phil’s Matthew 27:9-10 or the synoptic problem (just did a SS lesson on this).

Some will recoil away from the loss of certainty and retreat blissful, Josh McDowell-chanting ignorance. The possibility that they can not rely on the scriptures is too much. They would be left completely bewildered contemplating how God can be perfect and yet allow such a substandard depiction of his Son.

Others will take that fateful step and accept that the situation is more complicated than it appeared at first gloss. What happens next? Well, I am here to tell you that the “inerrantists” are right. For some, rigorous study of the bible as a body of writings leads to a gradual loss of faith and a turning away from Christianity. That’s what makes the joke, “Seminary is the place Christians go to lose their faith” so poignant. I know that my first confrontation with a doubtful gospel verse put me on the road to atheism. Then again, my wife calls me a fundamentalist atheist.

Of course, for many the step into nuance results in a more mature and humble faith. It’s a dangerous business going out your front door.. You don’t know where that path will take you. It could land in the dragon’s lair or you may come back again, a changed hobbit.

It is no wonder so many people seek the safe and sure. We need need to handle them gently and help them along toward a fuller experience of the world, if they will come.

P.S.: Can’t resist…
Eyewitnesses? Yeah, right.
Vance on 26 Feb 2009 at 5:23 pm #

E, the issue is not merely one of semantics, but really what is meant when a given individual says something is “inerrant” or “infallible” (setting aside that some interpret these two words differently).

To me, Scripture is inerrant in the sense that it inerrantly conveys the message that God intended, and that the message God intended was the one of the Gospel truth (Jesus is God’s Son, came as a sacrifice, etc). But, for me, this does not require that the vehicle by which these inerrant messages are conveyed has to be free of all factual error and discrepancy.

And I accept this inerrancy by faith, not by some built up evidentiary legal framework. It is by faith that I accept the historical facts that are necessary and essential to the Gospel, not because the historical record simply insists upon such a factual conclusion. That would be simple modernism and any religious faith based so foundationally upon such modernistic “proofs” is, then, bound by such scientific, modernistic analysis. It must live and die by it. I think such a proposition not only removes faith from the equation, but is highly dangerous to boot.
Vance on 26 Feb 2009 at 5:36 pm #

The post by Scott Ferguson above (and sorry to talk past you, Scott, but I am going to use you as an example) is a classic presentation of the danger of preaching inerrantism in the literal, factual historical sense. As I have always said, literalists and fundamentalists are strange bedfellows. They agree on the same (in my opinion) false position regarding Scripture, and then the atheist takes it to its logical conclusion while the fundamentalist uses sketchy logic and arguments to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

The basic position held by many atheists is that if Scripture is shown to be scientifically or historically inaccurate in even one instance, you can, and should, doubt everything in every text, and end in throwing the whole thing out. The fundamentalist buys right into this, accepting the “if/then” proposition, and so it forced to find a way to undo every scientific and historical problem. This, I will say without hesitation, is a losing proposition.

I say, instead, the following:

1. I believe the Bible is true as a matter of faith.

2. This faith would be illogical if the Bible told lies and falsehoods, but I don’t believe that any exist.

3. I accept that there are, indeed, scientific and historical inaccuracies, but these are not lies or falsehoods because the texts containing them were not meant as scientific or “historical” in our modern senses of the words, and the authors were not writing those types of documents.
Phil W on 26 Feb 2009 at 6:49 pm #

Vance,

I agree with almost everything that you said (but not because you changed my mind, but because it is what I have long believed).

You wrote:
“We have to distinguish between our beliefs about what actually happened and our belief about what the author intended when he told his version of events.”

I agree. I believe that what actually happened was probably something like my harmonization. But what the author intended is also important (perhaps more so). Matthew intended to mention just two women, so that’s what he did. He didn’t mention the other women because (a) he didn’t know about them or (b) he didn’t care to mention them. I won’t even try to choose between (a) and (b), but you can feel free.

You wrote:
“And then he would wonder why such an answer horrifies you.”

Your assumption that this answer would horrify me is groundless and absurd. Please refrain from goofiness.

We don’t have to choose between caring about what the author intended and what really happened; it’s OK to care about both, right?

The purpose of writing my first post (#15) was to respond to the claim that the empty tomb accounts contradict each other. So, I looked into it and found that most of the alleged contradictions are bogus (and some may not be!). If you don’t care, fine. If you’re too lazy to even bother looking into it, fine.

——–

Steve,

Yes, I also appreciate the human origins of the Bible. And I appreciate the poor Greek of the book of Revelation (not “Revelations”!) and that of Mark, and the excellent Greek of Luke and Hebrews.

You wrote:
“If a student was as sloppy and imprecise as Mark seems to be he/she would probably rate a C at best.”

Sloppy in what way? By only mentioning Isaiah when he should have mentioned Malachi and Isaiah? That seems harsh … and silly (quite frankly).

You wrote:
“For me the scales fell from my eyes when I started to understand the process of canon formation.”

You don’t need to tell me about canon formation, I’ve read Bruce M. Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament, F. F. Bruce’s The Canon of Scripture, Craig D. Allert’s A High View of Scripture?, and other works, especially the Church Fathers.

You wrote:
“We now know more about the formation of [the] Bible and the cultures that gave birth to it then [sic] any other generation of Christians. The time has come for Evangelical scholars to integrated [sic] this knowledge into there [sic] hermeneutics.”

For these sentences, I would have to give you a D at best. Haven’t you noticed that the majority of Bible commentaries are written by Evangelicals? Don’t you think that they integrate their knowledge of the formation of the Bible and ancient cultures into their commentaries? (Think of series such as the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, the New International Commentary on the Old/New Testament, the New International Greek Testament Commentary, the Pillar New Testament Commentary, the Two Horizons Old/New Testament Commentary, the Word Biblical Commentary, etc.)

Perhaps you’ve confused the terms “Evangelical” and “Fundamentalist”?
Vance on 26 Feb 2009 at 7:09 pm #

Phil, you are right, I assumed to much and should have said that it would horrify so many. It was more an attempt at levity than a representation of your particular position.

As for your harmony, I think it is fine as far as it goes, and that COULD be what was intended. It does provide a path that could avoid any outright contradictions.

But, again, it is just that, a harmonization, not the most likely intended meaning of the authors (unless you start with the preconception what the authors most likely intended is something that would, indeed, harmonize). You must admit that, taken separately and with no intent to harmonize, if you were asked to give what you believed was the authors’ most likely meaning from the text, you would state the meanings that (when placed side by side) *do* contradict each other. If you were then presented with that harmonized version and asked how likely THAT was the meaning of the author, you would probably rate its likelihood very low.

So, such harmonizations tend to take unlikely interpretations and force them onto the text for the sole purpose of creating a harmonization. While it is possible that all of these unlikely meanings were what was intended in every case in doubt, credulity becomes more and more stretched as you go down that path.

In fact, ironically, strict literalness is the first casualty of such an approach. Sticking with strict inerrancy and a strict “plain meaning” are often mutually exclusive.
Joe on 26 Feb 2009 at 7:19 pm #

Aren’t we all overlooking the elephant in the room? I would imagine most hold to Markan priority so it’s not simply four separate accounts, but that Matthew and Luke altered the story to fit their needs. Eg, Luke leaves out the promise of Jesus going to Galilee and then has Jesus appear in Jerusalem which then launches Acts.

But this isn’t the only episode to have such differences on what is obviously the same singular event. Trying to say Jesus cleansed the temple two or three separate times doesn’t help. Neither does saying the Jesus was anointed by a woman 2, 3, or 4 times. And to conflate all the differences in each parallel episode makes for some crazy stories. Did Matthew add a second demoniac to the Legion story? Did Matthew add a second blind man to the Bartimaeus story? Did Matthew add Zebedee’s wife to ask the question for her sons James and John? And if Matthew and Luke altered these details, who’s to say they didn’t alter others? And if Matthew and Luke altered these details from Mark, who’s to say that Mark didn’t alter details also?

I’m afraid that we evangelicals are just unwilling to consider that not only do differences exist between the gospels, but that the evangelists intentionally edited and altered the story. Of course, that opens the pandora’s box of the greater reliability of the whole story.
Vance on 26 Feb 2009 at 7:24 pm #

Phil, I missed that bit where you interlineated about what you think actually happened versus what the author likely intended.

I think that is important in that you recognize that Matthew may have (imo, did) intend to say that there were two women because he believed there were only two women. And that Mark intended to say something factually different because that is what he believed to be true. So, what you are doing is showing how the historical reality might be something which, while factually NOT believed by the author, could be made to harmonize with what the author actually wrote, due to the looseness of the language.

In other words, you seem to accept that Matthew and Mark might have disagreed on their facts, but happened to write their separate versions in such a manner that both could be *read* to be consistent with the historical reality (which at least one, or both, didn’t understand exactly right factually).
steve martin on 26 Feb 2009 at 7:40 pm #

Vance,

Good stuff!

Keep it comin’!!

I’ll say this; since I stopped believing that the Bible was dropped out of Heaven with a bow tied around it, and totally without error…my faith has increased!

How much faith does one need, if, like Islam, “Allah says it, so that’s it.”
Vance on 26 Feb 2009 at 7:48 pm #

Steve, I think that “not losing faith” bit is extremely important.

I think the degree to which a person is likely to lose their faith when confronted by discrepancies in Scripture is directly proportional to how strongly they hold to strict historical and scientific inerrancy.
Phil W on 26 Feb 2009 at 9:46 pm #

Vance,

Most of what you said is true, yet irrelevant to the task at hand.

As I’ve said, I care both about what the authors intended and what really happened. Why do you have a problem with that? Aren’t you at all inquisitive?

You appear to be uninterested at the task at hand (i.e., answering the question, “Do the accounts contradict each other?”). You seem to be answering this question with, Probably, but it doesn’t really matter, so I’m not going to waste my time thinking about it. (But I will bother telling people that they’re wasting their time thinking about it.)

My position is more like: We can’t know the answer before we investigate, so let’s give it a go! I’m willing to give the authors the benefit of the doubt because I believe that their writings are inspired and authoritative. But it’s possible that they made historically incompatible statements. Any solution must be held to tentatively.

Your assumption running through #34-35 that the Evangelists wrote everything that they knew (and if they omitted a detail, it must be because they didn’t believe it) is naive and absurd.
Elaine on 26 Feb 2009 at 10:21 pm #

Please remember that this was a group of women. Did they all set out together? At the same time? Dawn is before the sun rises and it is still a bit dark…you would need your headlights on if you were driving!
Also, the site of the tomb that was close to the cross could be seen from a nearby hillside (because the women were watching at a distance when Jesus was crucified), so some things could possibly be observed from that distance. [CRUCIFIXION: But all of Jesus’ acquaintances and the women—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s sons James and John, and many other women—who ministered to Him when He was in Galilee and who followed Him from Galilee, viewed everything from a distance.]

Did all the women go up close to check things out? Some were apparently more curious than others. The tomb was
Elaine on 26 Feb 2009 at 10:27 pm #

Please remember that this was a group of women. Did they all set out together? At the same time? Dawn is before the sun rises and it is still a bit dark…you would need your headlights on if you were driving!
Also, the site of the tomb that was close to the cross could be seen from a nearby hillside (because the women were watching at a distance when Jesus was crucified), so some things could possibly be observed from that distance. [CRUCIFIXION: But all of Jesus’ acquaintances and the women—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s sons James and John, and many other women—who ministered to Him when He was in Galilee and who followed Him from Galilee, viewed everything from a distance.] So you see, there were quite a number of women, and women can do a number of things and split up and go a number of directions. Why should you be surprised at what women do?
Did all the women go up close to check things out? Some were apparently more curious than others. The tomb was alongside a cliff area, for one passage mentions that Mary Magdalene went up to the tomb before she entered down into the tomb. No all of the women climbed around as she did. She must have had her hiking boots on!
Some women went to the disciples, while others went to Peter and John–even the apostles were in different groups. Everyone was scared and confused and frustrated. Perhaps that is why the reports are confusing…it shows that people were running here and there. But it seems there were at least 2 separate groups of women and 2 separate groups of apostles. So “reporters” are covering all the events but they might be covering different events.
Nick on 26 Feb 2009 at 11:26 pm #

Luke is the real gospel. The other ones are wrong. Especially Matthew.

As others have said, there’s a big difference between some of the Bible being wrong, and the resurrection not being a reality. IMO an infinite difference.

In short: I would handle it by not defending the Bible. You were vague with the word “concerned”. If she was concerned about inerrancy, I didn’t handle it very well.
Elaine on 26 Feb 2009 at 11:59 pm #

No gospel account is wrong. Each were reporters with their own story–they must have been very post-modern, for each one had a different story as they saw and experienced things. It’s Jesus who eventually brings order out of chaos as he begins appearing to them and then finally when he ascends into heaven.
steve martin on 27 Feb 2009 at 12:05 am #

Here’s what my pastor says:

“The book is not perfect, it is a book. It is the Word (not the words) that give it the power of God.”

When asked “then what parts can you trust…or not?

He says, “you can trust all of it!” It is the Word of God! Not necessarily the exact words of God.

How does this sound to you…

‘In the begining was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God.’

The Word is Christ Himself. The Bible, along with preaching and teaching, consolation of the brethren, and the sacraments is part of that Word.
rick on 27 Feb 2009 at 8:01 am #

CMP-

You clearly have a wide range of views here, so I hope you share your thoughts and/or follow-up to the question.

Steve Martin #45-

You pastor’s thoughts sound similar to those of N.T. Wright’s view in regards to the idea that the “authority of Scripture” is due to its respresentation of God’s authority.

N.T. Wright states:

“God wants the church to lift up its eyes and see the field ripe for harvest, and to go out, armed with the authority of scripture; not just to get its own life right within a Christian ghetto, but to use the authority of scripture to declare to the world authoritatively that Jesus is Lord. And, since the New Testament is the covenant charter of the people of God, the Holy Spirit, I believe, desires and longs to do this task in each generation by reawakening people to the freshness of that covenant, and hence summoning them to fresh covenant tasks. The phrase ‘authority of scripture’, therefore, is a sort of shorthand for the fact that the creator and covenant God uses this book as his means of equipping and calling the church for these tasks. And this is, I believe, the true biblical context of the biblical doctrine of authority, which is meant to enable us in turn to be Micaiahs, in church and how much more in society: so that, in other words, we may be able to stand humbly in the councils of God, in order then to stand boldly in the councils of men. How may we do that? By soaking ourselves in scripture, in the power and strength and leading of the Spirit, in order that we may then speak freshly and with authority to the world of this same creator God.”
Steve in Toronto on 27 Feb 2009 at 9:49 am #

Re: Phil
Regarding my spelling and grammar, I am dyslexic and I am writing one handed with a baby over my arm. I make no claims to inerrancy. Regarding the long list of commentaries listed. It’s wonderful that evangelical write so much about the bible and the evangelical’s layman buy their books. One the ways north American Christians express there faith is by buying stuff ( in this respect I am among the chef of sinners) but remember that if an evangelical scholar wants to keep his job at a Christian collage or get a position in most pulpits knows he better tow the inerrancy line (however creatively he defines it). I know a lot of evanjelical Anglicans who were educated in England and Duch Reformed types that did there advanced degrees at the Free University of Amsterdam and very few of them want to defend inerrancy (yes I know J.I. Packer does). Remember it was the board of Westminster who gave Peter Ennis the boot he had the support of the faculty. A lot of people are afraid for their jobs. An evangelical bible scholar who has express his doubts about inerrancy has about the same lifespan as a creation scientist in a secular biology department (less since tenure is a largely mythic concept in the world of Christian higher education). A lot of commenter’s have made the point that once inerrancy goes a lot of core doctrines might go with it. Maybe there right. One of the main Roman Catholic critiques of the Reformation was that without magisteral authority the inevitable result was schism and heresy. It’s hard to argue they were not correct but I am still grateful to the Reformers. They stood for truth regardless of where it leads them. I hope that future generations of evangelical scholars follow their example.
Vance on 27 Feb 2009 at 10:21 am #

Phil, look again at the original question Michael asked us. He asked how we would handle the issue of someone coming with this type of question, not simply untie that particular knot (which may be one way of handling the issue, but would simply lead to a dozen more knots).

And even if the question was “do these texts factually contradict each other?”, my answer, for all the reasons stated above would be “yes, they probably do.” I hear your harmonization for why they MAY not contradict each other as texts, and how they may not contradict reality even if they do contradict each other as texts (ie, the intent of the author). But I just don’t find them ultimately convincing, and I would argue that they can only be convincing to someone who has a predisposition to WANT them to be true. Absent that motivation, the most likely answer is that they ARE factually contradictory and, as a result, it is difficult (if not impossible) for us to know exactly what happened historically at that level of detail.

The conclusion is reach *after* the investigation, not simply the result of giving up. And I also think the authors were inspired, but I think they were inspired to tell the Gospel message truly, which does not necessarily require factual perfection. I think we agree on that part.

My point is that the exercise we were given was to explain how we would deal with this general issue, and I described that in the very first comment, pointing out that untying each knot was not the best approach. Fun and interesting possibly, but so often it simply feeds into the idea that factual inerrancy IS a requirement.
Vance on 27 Feb 2009 at 11:24 am #

Steve from Toronto:

I agree entirely with your last post. I am tired of “slippery slope” arguments. What they basically are saying is that it is better to be only a little bit wrong than take the risk of being a lot wrong. If you take the analogy of an actual slope:

You are on a slope, standing on narrow ledge, looking for truth. You know that the ledge is NOT where truth lies, but you look down at the bottom of the gorge and see that down there lies complete UNtruth. So, what do you do? Do you stay safe on your ledge, knowing that it is not quite right? Or, do you lace up some sturdy shoes, get some stout rope and head down the slope looking for the real truth (or at least getting closer to it)?

There is a safe, simple, comforting feeling to saying “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it”. But it presumes so much about exactly *what* God said that it becomes an almost useless bumper sticker shout. My response is usually

“Absolutely, I believe every thing God says as well, I just don’t think He said everything you think He said.”
Phil W on 27 Feb 2009 at 4:18 pm #

Vance,

Again, I agree with a lot of what you said. Yet there appears to be little rational basis for your belief that the accounts are contradictory. The exceptions are some of the details regarding the angels and John’s account of Mary Magdalene (i.e., there may be a rational basis for believing that these aspects are irreconcilable among the four Gospels).

You wrote:
“But I just don’t find them ultimately convincing, and I would argue that they can only be convincing to someone who has a predisposition to WANT them to be true. Absent that motivation, the most likely answer is that they ARE factually contradictory and, as a result, it is difficult (if not impossible) for us to know exactly what happened historically at that level of detail.”

I agree that it is impossible for us to know exactly what happened in every detail. Yet your words seem just as likely to be the opposite of the truth. I would argue that the claims of contradiction regarding the number of women, the time of day, whether or not the stone had been rolled away before the women had arrived, and most of the rest, can only be convincing to someone who has a predisposition to WANT them to be contradictory. Absent that motivation, the most likely answer is that they ARE NOT factually contradictory.

For example, regarding the time of day, this is what the Evangelists say:

Matthew: as the day was dawning
Mark: at sunrise
Luke: at early dawn
John: early, while it was still dark

We can, in fact, say with a great deal of confidence that all four authors were referring to the same time of day. Rationally, there is no basis for the belief that these are contradictory statements regarding the time of day. Only someone who really WANTS to believe that they are contradictory will be able to do so (and they must do so without a rational basis).
Vance on 27 Feb 2009 at 5:02 pm #

If you want to address the “likelihood” issue, then, that is fine, but keep in mind that I still think that the best approach to dealing with people who come with such contradictions is to, first and foremost, make it clear that even if such factual discrepancy existed, it would not undermine the ultimate truth of the Gospel message.

Now, as to this particular passage (among the many in Scripture that I believe are very likely true contradictions and factual/scientific errors), I have no problem with the time of day. I think that yes, it is very likely that they all meant the same time of day. But, remember my warning when dealing with such issues. If a person believes that Scripture can not be trusted if a single “error” exists, then you must clear away each and every one, not just most. Here, you have at a number of other “seeming” contradictions, and for each of them, can you really say that your interpretation is the one objectively most likely meant by the author?

The number of women alone, I believe, fails this test. It is not that it is irreconcilable, that is not what we are talking about. It is what the author most likely intended. I think, from a reading of the texts, Matthew believed that only two women were there. I have no reason, whatsoever, to think anything else.

Likewise, Mark’s text simply refers to one man there (angel or not), and the others refer to two. Nobody reading Mark would ever think he possibly meant two when he said they saw the one man. Such a reading requires one to set aside the most obvious belief and intent by Mark (that he believed there was just one man, and that is why he wrote it that way) in favor of a possible non-conflicting one.

And, with the “F” issue, you are again having to create scenarios that don’t exist in the text to make it fit. I don’t believe it is likely that the author understood the events as you construct them and then still wrote it the way they did. Again, it is a matter of likelihood.

As an investigative reporter, or a jury, I would follow occam’s razor and simply conclude that one or more of them simply got their facts wrong. It is, to my mind, the simplest, most compelling and most likely thing to have happened. And, since this does not cause me the least bit of theological heartburn, I have no reason to force less objectively likely scenarios.

As an historian (well, as someone with a degree in ancient history), I am very interested in what actually did happen, but I also recognize the limits and can only draw clear pictures where clear evidence exists. Everywhere else we have to hold, as you say, tentative conclusions. But this is a very different area of discussion (the “what actually happened”) than the question of whether the texts themselves are contradictory in the telling of what actually happened.
steve martin on 27 Feb 2009 at 5:09 pm #

The Genesis account of creation describes a flat earth. The lights hung in the dome, etc.

So what?

What else were people of that time and place expected to write?

Does that invalidate the whole of scripture?

Certainly not!

Two eyewitnesses to a hit and run describe the driver of the vehicle. One says that he was wearing a red baseball cap. The other says the driver was wearing a brown baseball cap. But they both saw the driver strike the victim and flee.

Because of the discrepancy, is are their stories not true? Was there no hit and run accident?
Phil W on 27 Feb 2009 at 6:18 pm #

Vance wrote:
“The number of women alone, I believe, fails this test. It is not that it is irreconcilable, that is not what we are talking about.”

Well, that’s what we were supposed to be talking about. The thread is about contradiction. The fact is that the accounts are not contradictory regarding the number of women. (Unless, of course, we redefine “contradiction.”)

Presumably, in your understanding, the author of John believed that Mary Magdalene went alone to the tomb. But then why did he have her say to the disciples, “we don’t know”? Did John’s Mary Magdalene think that she was royalty? Are you still sure that the Fourth Evangelist believed that Mary was alone? Again, is there any rational basis for that belief? Are there logical underpinnings for the belief that the accounts are contradictory about the number of women?

There are examples of contradictions in the Bible, but this isn’t one of them … unless you’re really desperate.
Vance on 27 Feb 2009 at 7:24 pm #

Phil, yes, the thread is about the contradiction but it is primarily about how to deal with the idea of such contradictions when they are presented, not necessarily about showing how it is not really a contradiction. Read Michael’s original post again. My method of dealing with such seeming contradictions, when they are raised by people in the manner Michael describes, is NOT to attempt to undo the discrepancy, but to explain why, even if there is a discrepancy, this does not undermine Scripture. That is untying the knot in the Gordian fashion, because it undoes basically ALL such knots at one fell swoop.

As for this particular case, though. In John, the issue of the women is vague, since he seems to describe her going alone, then she mentions that “we” don’t know where he was put. Does this imply that there were others with her going to the tomb, or does this imply that she was went alone, but now they, collectively, or they, as the women who are meant to treat his body, don’t know where he is. I don’t think it is clear, but that “we” definitely does not make it mandate that she went with others to the tomb. In fact, looking at it objectively, I would still say that John is most likely describing her going alone, and the “we” does not impact the “who went to the tomb that morning” question. This is not a matter of being “sure”, but of what is most likely, given the text.

And, you still have Matthew and Mark. There is nothing there to indicate that Matthew thought there were more than two. The only evidence we have on the subject is that he wrote about two. So, there is no way to logically conclude that he believed there were more. He *could* have, but we have no reason to reach that conclusion. So, this is a VERY logical underpinning that Matthew believed there were only two that went, and Mark believed there were three.

John describes one.
Matthew describes two.
Mark describes three.

The simplest and most convincing reading is that each one meant only that number, and that should be the default reading for this type of text unless there is some compelling evidence that the author meant something else.

Again, if you only had read one of these texts and were asked the question, “how many people did the author believe went to the tomb?”, you would say the numbers I set out above, no? If asked how likely it was that he believed that a greater number went, and he was just focusing on the number in the text, I believe you would put that likelihood very low, given the text on its own merits.

The ONLY reason for thinking that author may have meant something different than what is simply written in their text is by reference to another account coupled with a desire that each author did not make any factual errors.

Again, consider Gettysburg. Let’s say we had two accounts of Picket’s Charge. One account said it was led by regiment 1 and another account said it was led by regiment 2. Now, you COULD argue that each led the Charge at a different point in time along the way to Cemetery Ridge, thus somewhat harmonizing them, but you would agree that the more likely conclusion is that one of the two accounts just got it wrong.
Phil W on 27 Feb 2009 at 9:55 pm #

Well, you still seem to be wrong, at least based on commonly accepted definitions of “contradiction.”

But I do appreciate your general principal, even if it has failed you in this case:
“My method of dealing with such seeming contradictions, when they are raised by people in the manner Michael describes, is NOT to attempt to undo the discrepancy, but to explain why, even if there is a discrepancy, this does not undermine Scripture.”

Do you really believe that every time that Matthew or Luke omitted something that they found in Mark, it was because they believed it to be untrue? Isn’t it at least possible, and even likely, that Matthew and Luke sometimes had other reasons, whether theological or narrative-based or unknown?

Do you agree that Matthew and Luke had read Mark?

Do you think that upon reading Mark’s claim that two Marys and Salome went to the tomb, Matthew said, “No; Mark was wrong; it was only the two Marys”? Did Luke omit Salome because he thought that he knew that she wasn’t there? Do you really expect to be able to answer these questions in the affirmative with any confidence?

Remember: The question isn’t whether or not all of the Gospels say exactly the same things — everyone agrees that they don’t. The question also isn’t about whether the Gospels should be read individually, on their own terms — they should be! The question is about whether or not the Gospels contradict each other about, say, the number of women at the tomb. The answer that arises from an examination of the texts is: No, they do not contradict each other regarding the number of women.
steve martin on 27 Feb 2009 at 10:00 pm #

I’m sorry folks…

but I do believe that the notion that God MUST HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY ERROR FREE BOOK in order to work His power in people’s hearts through His Word of promise…

is just a very low view of the power of the gospel.

A very low view, indeed.
Wm Tanksley on 28 Feb 2009 at 12:12 am #

but I do believe that the notion that God MUST HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY ERROR FREE BOOK in order to work His power in people’s hearts through His Word of promise… is just a very low view of the power of the gospel. A very low view, indeed.

I think your objection works out to being that we shouldn’t claim anything about God, because that would limit Him. Frankly, that’s self-refuting — it’s a claim about God that limits Him.

The fact is that making a claim about God doesn’t limit God. Claims have no magical power over God; a truth about God is true even if some philosopher can convince you it’s a “limitation”.

-Wm
steve martin on 28 Feb 2009 at 12:18 am #

Wm Tanksley,

“I think your objection works out to being that we shouldn’t claim anything about God, because that would limit Him.”

Wrong. I never said that or implied that.

God’s law and his gospel are in that book. The whole book is true.

You need an error free book like the Muslims do…fine. I don’t. I have faith that what is in there is true. Every bit of it.
Wm Tanksley on 28 Feb 2009 at 12:48 am #

“Wrong. I never said that or implied that.”

Okay. But then I don’t understand your vehement objection to people who believe that the Bible is inerrant. Could you clarify, please? Surely you don’t disagree merely because they believe something similar to what Muslims believe (which, by the way, is a horrid caricature of both beliefs)…
steve martin on 28 Feb 2009 at 1:04 am #

Wm Tanksley,

You don’t need any FAITH to be a Muslim. Mohammed says it, Allah wills it…that’s it.

Christians walk by faith. We do not need an inerrant Bible to believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

Does not God work through fallible men and elements all the time?

This view that scripture has to be inerrant is a relatively new development. The early Christians did not have this hang-up. This new view was in part an answer to moderism, humanism and the enlightenment.

That over the centuries, with thousands of fragments and untold translators, and a myriad of versions..we can say there are NO errors? I believe it makes us look foolish.

I believe the bible is true, 100% and I believe it to be the infallible Word of the Living God, in spite of not being perfect in it’s compilation or translation.

The Bible is without error, Which one? The Catholics have one, the Protestants have one, the Orthodox have one.
Which one is perfect? The other two then have to be pretenders.

Here’s the answer…they are all perfect…even tough they slightly differ. Now that’s faith.

Lastly…I will believe in a totally inerrant Bible when someone can produce for me each ORIGINAL manuscript for each book of the Bible.

Until that day comes, and it never will, no one will be able to prove their cliam to an innerant, every jot and tittle, perfect book.

Thanks,

Steve M.
Jason on 28 Feb 2009 at 10:58 am #

Incidentally, steve martin keeps bringing up the muslims and the Quran.

Steve- though muslims are insistent that the Quran was dictated and that all copies of the Quran agree (and thus no text criticism is necessary, ever!—Arthur Jeffery’s was a dangerous path), they do have something the Chicago Statement (see article V) would not hear of.

Namely, Muslims have a doctrine of abrogation that applies to the Quran. If there’s a contradiction, then you go with what God said/inspired last. This wouldn’t necessarily solve every biblical problem, but it is interesting to think about.

Now in our case, that probably means going with John. Who better to correct the errors of his predecessors in an inspired manner? But maybe we don’t agree on which Gospel is last. As to taking the earliest Gospel, there will surely be disagreement. I tend to go for the Lukan priority espoused by the Jerusalem School. Sure Mark’s short, but some of Marks individual pericopes are a lot longer than those in Mt/Lk. And besides, not everything grows with time.
steve martin on 28 Feb 2009 at 11:03 am #

Jason,

Thanks for those great pieces of info and your thoughts regarding the matter.

I bring up the Muslim/Christian Bible/Koran comparison because I’d like people to realize that they (Islam) are bound up in law (evil law, at that)

We are people of faith.
Seth R. on 02 Mar 2009 at 1:03 am #

As a Mormon, I’d simply quote our Article of Faith that states:

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.”

That would be enough for me to move on, and focus on the actual point of the story – the Resurrection.

We get flak from some for that article of faith, but I would point out that the Chicago Statement puts far more qualifications on accuracy of the Bible text than the LDS 8th Article of a Faith does.
steve martin on 02 Mar 2009 at 1:08 am #

Seth R.,

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.”

Of course, as the one True Church, you guys are the only ones that get it right.

From what I’ve read in the Book of Mormon, there is hardly anything that is correct in the Bible.

Just about every doctrine I found in that book was antithetical to Holy Scripture (the Bible).
Seth R. on 02 Mar 2009 at 1:31 am #

Well, that’s surprising Steve, since I’ve heard several prominent Evangelical scholars (such as Craig Blomberg at the Denver Theological Seminary) state that the Book of Mormon itself has very little, if any, DOCTRINE that is Biblically objectionable. I think you may have it confused with the Doctrine and Covenants (that’s were most of our truly novel material comes from).

But this isn’t about my religion. It’s about yours. I only used my own to provide a certain viewpoint on the Bible and to juxtapose with the Chicago Statement. Nothing more. I will not be drawn into an irrelevant discussion of whether Mormons are Christians or not.
steve martin on 02 Mar 2009 at 1:40 am #

Seth R.,

Very well, Seth.

I will say that whether a Mormon is a Christian or not is none of my, or anyone else’s business but God.

The Bible contains factual errors, but the message is true, and infallible.

Christ was God in the flesh and paid the complete price of our sins that we might become His through faith.

It’s simple…but a lot of folks would rather make up their own schemes of righteousness and prop up their religious ladders of self-justification.

There’s nothing new under the sun.

Thanks Seth.
E on 02 Mar 2009 at 8:31 am #

Seth R:

The LDS Article of Faith is a statement of whether or not a translation of the Bible is the Word of God. It does not seem to address whether or not the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are the Word of God. It also does not seem to address what it means for the Bible (i.e., the original texts) to be the Word of God when the texts (i.e., the original words after ruling on textual variants) and translations are sure, but different Biblical accounts of the same incidents do not accord with each other. It seems to me that the LDS Article of Faith does not apply to anything other than translations of the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures themselves.
Seth R. on 02 Mar 2009 at 9:39 am #

The 8th Article of Faith is a highly simplified answer that doesn’t fully explore all the ramifications. For most normal LDS churchgoers, it is sufficient, and it guards against problems like the one outlined in the original post. But I don’t pretend it goes much further than that. You can expand the word of “translation” to mean “translating the word and will of God” or “translating to writing the unfolding of sacred events.” In this case you would say that somebody simply “translated” wrong what actually happened.

This is a broader application of the word “translate” than others are used to. But it wouldn’t be the first time my religion has appropriated a word to have greater religious significance than its original meaning.

However, Article of Faith or no Article of Faith, LDS scholars end up debating pretty-much the same concerns being raised here. What the Article does do, is signal to the worshiper that it’s OK for the text to be wrong. It doesn’t provide a lot of guidance on in what WAY the text might be wrong, but as a mere signal for open-mindedness, it does its job.
admin on 02 Mar 2009 at 12:06 pm #

Please don’t let this turn into a Mormon post.

We teach on Mormonism on Monday nights on Paltalk (www.paltalk.com) at 9pm CST. You are more than welcome to join. Rob Bowman leads the course. Just search for “The Theology Program”.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 04 Mar 2009 at 3:50 pm #

Steve Martin: “The Bible contains factual errors, but the message is true, and infallible.”

Please name three “factual errors” that bother you the most.

Steve Martin: “This view that scripture has to be inerrant is a relatively new development. The early Christians did not have this hang-up.”

Please read this endorsement by J.I. Packer regarding Dr. Woodbridge’s book defending inerrancy:

“”The unpleasant task of exposing shoddy scholarship can rarely have been taken in hand with so much gentleness and grace as it is in Professor Woodbridge’s response to The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible. A nasty job nicely done. In The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible two young professors tried to show that the best theology before the Reformation and the best Reformed theology since affirms the infallibility of Scripture in matters of faith and conduct but allows it to be incorrect on matters of historical and scientific detail. Professor Woodbridge’s learned review makes it impossible to doubt that this paradoxical opinion is wrong. With courtesy and restraint Professor Woodbridge administers a series of knock-out blows to the confidently voiced claim that factual inerrancy is no authentic element in the historic Christian view of Scripture. Professor Woodbridge brings scholarly integrity and a great weight of learning to the business of setting straight the record, confused by others, as to how Christians through the centuries have regarded the Bible. His monograph is a model of careful analysis and cool, corrective controversy. It advances understanding of the history of thought about Scripture in a way that the more pretentious essay that called it forth quite failed to do.”

From: here.
Vance on 04 Mar 2009 at 4:43 pm #

TUAD, I think the point Steve is making is that the factual errors do not “bother him” at all. And I think that is the important point for folks like Steve and myself. To us, it doesn’t make any difference whether there are factual or scientific errors, historical anachronisms, etc. Those things do not effect the inspiration of the text or the infallibility of the message.
steve martin on 04 Mar 2009 at 5:04 pm #

Vance,

Thank you.

You said it much better than I.

– Steve
Truth Unites... and Divides on 04 Mar 2009 at 5:45 pm #

Vance: “TUAD, I think the point Steve is making is that the factual errors do not “bother him” at all.”

William Tanksley said it best: “But then I don’t understand your vehement objection to people who believe that the Bible is inerrant.”
Truth Unites... and Divides on 04 Mar 2009 at 5:47 pm #

“With courtesy and restraint Professor Woodbridge administers a series of knock-out blows to the confidently voiced claim that factual inerrancy is no authentic element in the historic Christian view of Scripture.”

Yes indeed. Much warm thanks to Dr. J.I. Packer and Dr. Woodbridge.
Vance on 04 Mar 2009 at 6:04 pm #

TUAD, that is actually an easy one.

I have no problem with people believing that the Bible is factually, scientifically and historically inerrant. What I have a problem with is anyone (whether it be fundamentalist or atheist) saying that Scripture MUST be so, or it should not be trusted at all. I hear Christians all the time saying that the Bible can not have factual or scientific errors because, if it did, then it can not truly be the inspired Word of God. Thus, everyone who becomes convinced of this “if/then” absolutism will necessarily doubt Scripture if they come to be convinced of such errors. I believe this is a very, very great danger in the Christian world today.

Personally, I believe the Bible IS inerrant in that it infallibly presents the Message God intended, which is not undermined in the least, or becomes “in error” simply because the text was written at a time when history and science were not written about with strict literalness and where a person telling an account of Jesus’ life was less concerned with strict historical accuracy in the minute details than with getting Jesus’ message and the major events passed along.
steve martin on 04 Mar 2009 at 6:15 pm #

An inerrant view of the bible quite often leads to a wooden, legalistic view of scripture wherein each line of scripture, or each book in the bible has an equal measure of value.

Also, many inerrancy advocates believe that if you DON’T have that view of scripture then you are lacking something necessary to faith.

Jesus +.

Jesus + your decision for Christ or
Jesus + a Pope or
Jesus + bishops ordained in historic succession or
Jesus + an inerrant Bible

We (many of us) believe in ‘Jesus alone’.

No pluses. No add on’s. No nothin’s…just the blood of Christ and His forgiveness of our sins.
E on 05 Mar 2009 at 8:42 am #

Truth:

That’s a nice-sounding endorsement by Packer, but I’d like to ask what value it has except for those who already are committed to inerrancy?

J. I. Packer is a prolific and well-known Evangelical author, but he has neither a Masters nor a Doctorate in theology or Biblical studies or Patristics or Church History, AFAIK.

Also, since the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts, its defenders should, IMO, have rather extensive expertise in the original languages of Scripture. But there is no evidence that Dr. Packer (he has a doctorate in philosophy) is an expert in, or a fluent reader of, ancient Greek and Hebrew. (But perhaps he is.)

As a signer of The Chicago Statement and general editor of the ESV, he certainly has a horse in a couple of the races that Evangelicals are running (inerrancy and gender language). But that gets back to my first question – i.e., how valuable and meaningful is his endorsement to those who don’t unquestioningly share these views?

From a scholarly perspective, does his endorsement of Woodbridge’s book means much more than an endorsement by someone ike D. James Kennedy or Charles Colson?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 05 Mar 2009 at 10:20 am #

E: “But that gets back to my first question – i.e., how valuable and meaningful is his endorsement to those who don’t unquestioningly share these views?”

I’ve seen more intelligent questions.

Let me ask you, “How valuable and meaningful are endorsements in general to those who don’t unquestioningly share the views of the endorser?”

Eg., President Obama endorses Planned Parenthood. How valuable and meaningful is his endorsement to pro-lifers?
Phil W on 05 Mar 2009 at 10:21 am #

E,

Just a clarification:

J. I. Packer has a doctorate in theology from the University of Oxford. His thesis was entitled: “The redemption and restoration of Man in the thought of Richard Baxter.” He completed it in 1954.

(He does not have a doctorate in philosophy. He has a Doctor of Philosophy degree, which is usually abbreviated as Ph.D. but Oxford abbreviates it as D.Phil.)

Here’s the listing from the Oxford Libraries catalog:

Author Packer, J. I. (James Innell)
Title The redemption and restoration of Man in the thought of Richard Baxter / by James I. Packer.
Publisher 1954.
Description a-g, vi, 499 leaves ; 34 cm.
Notes Includes index of names.
Thesis (D.Phil.)–University of Oxford, 1954.
Bibliography: leaves 488-491.
Subjects Theological anthropology — Christianity
Redemption.
Salvation.
Personal Name as Subject Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691
Other Names University of Oxford. Faculty of Theology. Thesis.
E on 05 Mar 2009 at 10:25 am #

TURD:

And I’ve seen more intelligent responses.
Jeremy on 03 Apr 2009 at 3:46 am #

This is late in the game, but Chris Tilling’s latest post may be helpful:

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2009/04/negotiating-tensions-in-bible.html